ABRAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Afaq Hussain, second respondent herein, filed a complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, against the petitioners alleging that they had committed an offence under section 365 read with section 34 IPC. Accor- ding to the complainant, he had married the daughter of the second petitioner herein in 1968 and that after the marriage, the relations between him and his wife had become strained and that hi? wife had left him and was living with her father. On 6.5.1968 at about 8.15 A.M. when the complainant was going to his office, the first petitioner who was a relation of his wife, had met him and told him that the condition of his wife was very serious and that he should go immediately to village Tanda Badli, District Rampur, U.P. where his wife was lying ill. The complainant thereupon went along with the first petitioner to that village and was taken to the house of the second petitioner where he was wrongfully confined till 12.5.1968, On 10.5.1968, the complainant was forced to sign two non-judicial stamp papers and two blank papers. He was allowed to leave the village only on 12.5 1968. Mean while, the complainant's father had lodged a report with the police on 7.5.1968, that the complainant was missing. After the complainant returned to Delhi, he lodged a report with the police against the petitioners for wronful confinement but no action was taken by the police and, therefore, he filed a complaint to the Magistrate.

(2.) The learned Magistrate made a preliminary enquiry and there after summoned the petitioners and the other two persons to appear before him to answer a charge under section 395 read with section 34 IPC. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of these witnesses will be referred to at a later stage. The petitioners and the co-accused were examined under section 209 Cr. P.C. They denied the allegations made against them. On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Magistrate discharged Ishaq Hussain and Mohd. Fazal' two of the accused, but committed the petitioners herein to stand their trial in the court of Session for an offence under sections 365/34 IPC. The petitioners there upon filed a revision petition in the Court of Session and contended that the evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against them for an offence under section 365 Indian Penal Code and that therefore, the committal order may be quashed. The learned Additional Session Judge, who heard this revision petition, accepted this contention and has submitted a report to this Court with a recommendation that the order of commitment of the petitioners, may be quashed.

(3.) Two contentions have been raised before me on behalf of the petitioners, Namely. (i) That the petitioners were not given an opportunity to examine any defence witnesses in the committal Court; and (ii) the the prosecution evidence does not make out a prima facie case under sections 365/35 IPC.